In the midst of my thinking over the prospect of having covered car storage tracks and the proposed visitors center in Chama, I got to wondering about the source of my uneasiness.
Then I got to thinking about the Chama engine shop, and it hit me. It revolves around the word "permanance". Here, I would try to classify any changes into three categories:
1.
Permanent. Into this category would fall things like the engine house, the rest room facility, and the proposed visitors center, or other structures. Once they are in place they are likely to be there for a long, long time, and would be difficult, if not impossible, to undo.
Items fitting this category should be given the utmost due consideration. This means that there should be a wider dissemination of information than the present decision process permits. (
See more specific comments on this subect at the end of this posting.)
2.
Semi-Permanent.
Although it might be a bit of a stretch, I would also include changes in track alignment and/or structure. An example would be the ongoing ballast program. This obviously has changed the appearance of the track, and just as obviously has significantly improved the quality of the structure. But as the track is used and subjected to the elements, things will change.
3.
Temporary
As this category implies, this would be for items of an ad hoc nature, and any changes would undone after a particular task is completed. For example, a temporary enclosure which would allow for restoration work to be done on a piece of rolling stock, but which would be removed once the immediate job is completed.
OTHER ISSUES
Some time ago was when I first heard of the idea of the visitors center. I complained that this information hadn't been adequately distributed. It was pointed out to me that it had been posted on the FRIENDS web site for some time, so if I had wanted to know about the subject, it was available. Well - yes and no. First of all I do not regularly dig through the web site to see if anything of importance shows up (my fault). But second, the information is posted without any readily apparent mechanism available for timely comment. So it's sort of "take it or leave it". If the FRIENDS (or their representative) would regularly post here, then this would go a long way toward furthering those interested in C&TS doings - whether they be FRIENDS members or no. Like it or not, IMHO the FRIENDS have a wider responsibility to the community at large.
Fortunately, since the subject first came up there has been additional pertinent info come to light here which has fleshed out the picture. But if it hadn't been through some digging by posters on this board, we probably wouldn't have known about it to any great degree.
Now, we are faced with the prospect of an up/down vote by the Commission at the upcoming meeting. In all fairness, though, I seem to remember that there are additional hurdles to overcome before a final decision is made.
Now I expect that someone will raise the issue as to why I don't take a more immediate interest in what is happenings. Unfortunately, I can't. So like many others - I suspect - I have to rely on forums such as this to stay current.
May I suggest to the FRIENDS that either they make a more concerted effort towards broader communication with us unwashed, or perhaps start a board like this of their own. But I want to emphasize to the FRIENDS that the C&TS is not their private playground and have a much more general obligation to the railfan/historical community.
Thanks for listening to my grumbles.
CJ
